Over at Instapundit, Glenn quotes a must-read article from Jonah Goldberg showing how “badly the press bungled Katrina coverage. . . . And yet, an ubiquitous media chorus claims simultaneously that Katrina was Bush’s worst hour and the press’s best.” Like Glenn, I recommend that you read the whole thing. And I agree with him that what the MSM learned from all this is “that if they all shouted lies in unison they could drive Bush down in the polls.”
Seems they’re doing the same thing in Iraq by highlighting the opposition’s “score,” our side’s failures, while downplaying, if not just plain ignoring, our successes.
And some people still deny the MSM is biased.
UPDATE: Glenn has more here on the media failures on Katrina, indicating that media “mis-reporting hampered rescue efforts” and wondering if it “cost lives.” Read the whole thing and follow the link.
Ah, yes… it’s all just a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
And, of course, let’s not forget the assumption implicit in your theory: that the American people are too stupid and too ignorant to make up their own minds about the President’s performance.
Heaven forbid that Republicans could give the public a little more credit than that… but you seem intent on assuming the best about Iraqis while assuming the worst about Americans. “Americans are so idiotic that their televisions are telling them what to think! It’s the only explanation!” Isn’t that your argument here?
>And, of course, let’s not forget the assumption implicit in your theory: that the American people are too stupid and too ignorant to make up their own minds about the President’s performance.MSM.)
Let’s try this again …
And, of course, let’s not forget the assumption implicit in your theory: that the American people are too stupid and too ignorant to make up their own minds about the President’s performance.
No, Anonymous, (Just love the username.), but how can people even begin to “make up their own minds” when their primary source of information is dis-information.
Julie the Jarhead
(Whose heart skips a beat whenever she sees the initials MSM.)
Brilliant piece by Jonah Goldberg. So less than a year later we are starting to see the ouitlines of the MSM sham coverage of Katrina. How they can undermine an American President and those brave people who were there saving lives. One of my favorite memories was of Shep Smith form FOX no less, on the bridge over pass. He kept saying “help for these ppl is right down there a half mile, but they keep wondering in the wrong direction looking for drinking water and safety, it’s so frustrating .” I finally screamed at the TV screen, “well put down the damn mic and go over and tell em where to walk moron.!” It was like the nature channel not helping save a stuck in the mud gazelle when a lion might come by eventually. “we’re just observers, can’t get involved.”
Anonie-non, two big mistakes from your end of the pond.
First, not all Americans watch TV for their primary news source… you may and that is indicative of and within itself as a deficiency on your part.
Second, when polling deducts those who do not vote on Election Day, the Pres’ numbers grab 12-18 points on average and go north in approval. And as Bill Clinton, Dick Nixon and JimminyCirkcetCarter have proven: the poll numbers while in office can be reversed when you get out.
Remember too, this is a President (W) who continually intones he DOES NOT rule by polling. He does what’s right. America will follow later.
Finally, the whole schtick about Americans being idiots –come on. When did TV become the font of culture and wisdom in our society; sorry, people who watch West Wing and Will & Grace aren’t at the top of the intellect scale in any state –even Nevada. Why is it that 75% of high school seniors can’t identify South America on a map if we’re a society of informed brainiacs? Uhh Anonie-non? That’s pretty poor when one considers that knowledge takes a steep dive into the abyss after high school.
So, pack in the shrill demostrative outrage that you greet Bruce with on this post. He didn’t say Americans are idiots. That’s why more and more of them are using other sources for news –not the MSM.
It’s fair to ask, if Joe-6-pack were getting a fair representation of what’s happening on the WOT, in Afghanistan and Iraq, would he be so despairing of W’s leadership? Probably not… except for the diehard partisan hacks of the Left who simply hate Bush as an end all to itself.
It seems pretty intellectually bankrupt when an ideas defenders contradict each other. Julie defends this idea by claiming that television is “their primary source of information”, while Matt defends this idea by claiming THE OPPOSITE, saying “not all Americans watch TV for their primary news source”. Do they or don’t they, guys?
And it seems clear that this isn’t just “die hard partisan hacks”. Bush’s ratings are almost as low among independent voters as they are among Democrats, and more than a third of Republicans are dissatisfied ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=azX3JBNur5XU&refer=us ). And even the Bush people aren’t so venal as to blame the media… Rove himself blames the war ( http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/survey/news-article.aspx?storyid=57646 ), not the media.
And while the original post didn’t SAY that Americans were idiots, I stand by my original assessment that his position ASSUMES that they are. That is his point. Americans are wrong to view Bush so poorly, and they only view him that way because they are too stupid to know any better. His position rests on the assumption that Americans blindly and gullibly swallow anything the boob-tube tells them… they don’t check it out from other sources, they don’t engage in any critical thinking, and they don’t have the wit to know when they are being lied to. I am just pointing it out.
Dan, you’re on target about the motives of most of the MSM but I think you give them too much “credit”. Here in the American heartland, at least, I believe people are intelligent enough to see through the MSM’s bias.
Don’t forget the MSM’s failures. Democrats did not take control of Congress in 2002, John Kerry was not elected president in 2004 and, despite the president’s low poll numbers, the Democrats are not likely to take control of both houses of Congress.
Fair point, Trace, but why then do many believe we’re losing in Iraq and that the Administration failed in Iraq when neither story is true?
How, Anonymous in #6, is it intellectually bankrupt for two different defenders of an idea to have two different viewpoints? Sounds more like intellectual diversity to me.
I think the failure here is that the MSM has presented only one perspective and the White House (with McClellan as press secretary) has failed to counter that deceptive (if not dishonest) perspective. Simply put, by and large, the Administration has failed to get its story out. Let’s hope that Tony Snow will do a better job than his predecessor.
GPW– Could it be because the Voice Of America, the foreign news service run by the United States government, has not had a correspondent in Iraq for the last six months because it is too dangerous?
If all is so peachy in Baghdad, how do you explain that fact?
[ Where did I say things were peachy? I just said we’re winning and that they’re better than reported. But, there are still problems and I have said as much. –GPW]
Because when I hear that our government is too afraid of conditions in Iraq to send their own correspondents in, I get the impression that maybe we aren’t doing so well over there! THAT is why we believe we are losing in Iraq. Not because of the MSM. But because things are so awful that even our own government is keeping people out of there. Apparently, Iraq is a paradise for Iraqi children, but too perilous for VOA war correspondents!
WHY IS THE VOA KEEPING ITS PEOPLE OUT OF IRAQ, DAN????
Ah, I see someone is spoiling for a fight.
It seems pretty intellectually bankrupt when an ideas defenders contradict each other. Julie defends this idea by claiming that television is “their primary source of information”, while Matt defends this idea by claiming THE OPPOSITE, saying “not all Americans watch TV for their primary news source”. Do they or don’t they, guys?
Well, let’s see what Julie truly said:
No, Anonymous, (Just love the username.), but how can people even begin to “make up their own minds” when their primary source of information is dis-information.
In short, Julie did NOT say that Americans’ primary source of information is television. You deliberately misquoted Julie in an attempt to create a contradiction where none existed.
Now, provide sources for your accusation about the VOA. Direct links this time, since you’ve demonstrated a deliberate willingness to untruthfully quote people.
it seems to me that anonymous #6 seems more interested in arguing empty rhetoric and making it seem that commentors are disagreeing with each other in small statements than sticking to the main points. As well, it is puzzling why Anonymous would think that every commentor on this site has to agree robot-like with each other…
seems like someone may be arguing from a viewpoint that has cloudy vision.
ND30–
Couldn’t you ask nicer than that? Even so, here you are:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201386.html
And if you go directly to the VOA stories, you find that they aren’t even doing any original reporting from Iraq any more… they are clipping from AP and Reuters ( http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-05-23-voa12.cfm — this refers to a VOA news story entitled “Car Bombing, Shooting Kill Police and Civilians in Iraq”, which makes me wonder why the VOA is focusing on the negative and giving people the idea that things are going badly in Iraq!).
Now, care to explain?
WHY IS THE VOA KEEPING ITS PEOPLE OUT OF IRAQ?
I don’t think GPW is implying that the people are ignorant and I don’t think intelligent people are buying into the MSM’s “Blame Bush” game. I hear people joking all the time, whether it’s the Dodgers losing or a dreay day – “must be Bush’s fault.” Clearly making fun of the MSM and proving that they’re not falling for it.
Um, Anonymous, I never said things were peachy and acknowledge there we continue to suffer setbacks, but you continue to focus on the bad.
The VOA may be keeping its people out, but thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Iraqis who fled Saddam’s rule are returning. The number of private organizations and businesses is growing. A free press is flourishing.
Let me repeat—I’m not saying that just because there’s lots of (unreported) good stuff that all bad things have gone away, I’m saying that there’s more good than bad.
And anyway, did you miss the point of the post or something? It’s that the media reporting of Katrina — and Iraq — has been biased.
Instead of taking issue with my points (as you started to do in your first comment), you introduce some issue to bait us on another issue.
The article told you exactly why.
1. Their previous correspondent had attacks and threats made against her life specifically.
2. They cannot afford the security measures that they think are necessary for journalists on their current budget.
Neither are surprising; journalists have been targeted at a vastly-higher rate than other members of the population. Terrorists go after targets that will gather the most negative media coverage, and killing/kidnapping a journalist will do that. The whole point is to perpetuate the propaganda.
And of course, you are more than willing to do that. Indeed, you and your fellow media leftists have been covering up the brutality under Saddam’s regime for years. Unfortunately, educated Americans know that brutal killings and kidnappings were part and parcel of life under Saddam — and unlike now, the Iraqis could do nothing about it.
Craig T–
When you say that “I don’t think intelligent people are buying into the MSM’s Blame Bush game”, does that mean that the people who disapprove of Bush are unintelligent? Again, this was my original point. Anyone who believes that Bush is doing poorly is unintelligent.
GPW says that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush because they are buying the MSM line. You say that intelligent people don’t buy into it, ERGO a majority of Americans must be unintelligent. Right? That is the flip-side of your statement, isn’t it?
GPW–
Again, explain to me how Iraq is just fine for Iraqi children, but too dangerous for VOA war correspondents.
This point goes directly to the issue of bias: the MSM isn’t being biased if their position that Iraq is dangerous and unstable is in line with the actual policy positions of government agencies like the VOA. They are reporting the facts.
If you don’t like the facts they are reporting or if you don’t like the way they are reported, then go to Iraq and file your own stories. They have a free press there, right? So go.
A related point for you, GPW–
Does it occur to you that the “good things” aren’t being reported because conditions are too unsafe?
How can news organizations report on the good things, if they can’t get their correspondents in safely? Even the VOA cannot do this. You seem to be blaming the media for not sending their people into a situation that is so dangerous that even our own government won’t send people in! Why should NBC be required to run risks that the VOA is unwilling to run, just to report on your alleged good news items? How about taking the VOA to task for refusing to send people to Iraq to do this “good news reporting”?
GPW says that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush because they are buying the MSM line. You say that intelligent people don’t buy into it, ERGO a majority of Americans must be unintelligent. Right? That is the flip-side of your statement, isn’t it?
Well, let’s see…..this is GPW’s original statement:
I think the failure here is that the MSM has presented only one perspective and the White House (with McClellan as press secretary) has failed to counter that deceptive (if not dishonest) perspective. Simply put, by and large, the Administration has failed to get its story out. Let’s hope that Tony Snow will do a better job than his predecessor.
Again, you make misquotes to try to point out contradictions where there are none. GPW points out the media’s bias, Craig points out that intelligent Americans are looking deeper than that and pointing out inconsistencies in the MSM’s slanted story. Neither of them said or implied that Americans who disagree with Bush are unintelligent — instead, they’re just misinformed.
Again, explain to me how Iraq is just fine for Iraqi children, but too dangerous for VOA war correspondents.
I already have. Terrorists deliberately target journalists because they know the propaganda value of killing them. In a situation where they are being choked off from their resources, they must try more desperately for harder and more spectacular kills — and getting a journalist is one of them.
Killing Iraqi children, on the other hand, would turn the population against them even more completely. Children are indeed safer than they were under Saddam, where they were quite often imprisoned for their parents’ opposition or dissent — a fact that the MSM and leftists covered up in the name of “waging peace”.
Anon (#18) sez: Does it occur to you that the “good things” aren’t being reported because conditions are too unsafe?
Um… do you also believe that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 because there are no photos of it?
Or that a tree makes no sound in the woods if no one is there?
WTF?
#19 – I have not followed the full issue is here, but a quick point: terrorists in Iraq do kill children if they can manage to get an opportunity – they have just been increasingly ineffectual at it –
Their child-killing is part of why the terrorists are evil and deserve defeat and death.
And even with that threat: yes, the average Iraqi child is much safer than under Saddam – who was a terrorist on his own people – better for kids if the terrorists are out running for their lives, or on trial as Saddam now.
I have never understood why people who oppose the war don’t just come out and say “We support Saddam”. Unless I understand it as part of their overall, pervasive intellectual dishonesty
“We support Saddam”
You mean like this?
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/index012003.html
Do you have photos of any of the war protesters shaking hands with Saddam?
Remember… Reagan, Bush-pere, Cheney, and Rumsfeld supported him FIRST!
And yet, oddly enough, they were the ones who got rid of him.
Why are you attempting to bash Rumsfeld for at one time supporting a dictator that you and yours wanted to perpetuate in power?
Furthermore, are you aware that Ramsey Clark, the founder of the major antiwar group International ANSWER, is not only Saddam’s attorney, but is saying Saddam is completely innocent?
So, you are calling Cheney and Rumsfeld flip-floppers? They supported him before they got rid of him? FLIP-FLOP!!
So, you are calling Cheney and Rumsfeld flip-floppers? They supported him before they got rid of him? FLIP-FLOP!!
They themselves have admitted that it was a mistake to support Saddam and that the world was best off without him.
But again, why are you attempting to bash Rumsfeld for at one time supporting a dictator that you and yours wanted to perpetuate in power?
When and where did Cheney and/or Rumsfeld say that it was a mistake for them to support Saddam?
When they got rid of him. It’s just that simple. 🙂
Now, again, why are you attempting to bash Rumsfeld (and Cheney) for at one time supporting a dictator that you and yours wanted to perpetuate in power?
I can keep this up, you know; it only makes your hypocrisy more obvious in your complete and utter avoidance of answering. 🙂
Good Lord. Liberals are so simpleminded. Something they call conservaties constantly. Ah ,we supported and encouraged the Soviets against the Nazi’s. Duh. Because we viewed the Nazis as more evil at the time. It was Germany who was invading eastern europe. Later we were in a Cold War against the Soviets because of their bluster and mayhem. For all the effort liberals make to convince ppl they are so intelligent and nuanced and can understand the degrees of every issue. They cant understand us choosing Iraq over Iran, even when Iran had held hundreds of our citizens hostage. They dont want to understand. Anytime they can bash America, and this President they do it. Whether it’s logical or not.
#23 North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 10:31 pm – May 24, 2006
And yet, oddly enough, they were the ones who got rid of him.
Apparently, you are too dumb to recognize a pattern. Saddam–friend of the Bushies, then deposed. Noriega–friend of the Bushies, then deposed. One might seriously wonder whether other putative friends of the Bushies are in their sights to be deposed. And, if they believe themselves to be, whether they would be at the beck-and-call of the Bushies. I certainly wouldn’t be, if I were them.
One might seriously also wonder, whether other leaders of other countries, who might have otherwise become friends of the Bushies, might not do that for fear that they might be deposed. By the Bushies themselves.
Be careful what you wish for. It might come back to bite you.
#27 Gene in Pennsylvania — May 25, 2006 @ 12:31 am – May 25, 2006
Good Lord. Liberals are so simpleminded. Something they call conservaties constantly. Ah ,we supported and encouraged the Soviets against the Nazi’s.
So young, so conservative, and so ignorant. Conservatives in the US did not support or encourage the Soviets in the European theater. Certainly not before Pearl Harbor. Conservatives were the “American Firster” brigade (much like the 101st keyboard brigade here on the Internet), which opposed American involvement not only in the European theater, but also in the Pacific.
Learn a bit about history before you bloviate.
raj baby writes to Gene: “Learn a bit about history before you bloviate.”
Oh raj baby, the volumes of comments we could list demostrating your fundamental unwillingness to conform YOUR view to history’s great lessons, the number of times you’ve been proven wrong and then jumped the great divide like Anonie-non by diverting attention to yet another baiting taunt… and on and on with you raj baby.
Tiny brain, empty soul: folks I give you raj, the new poster boi for the effete GayLeft.
Re: Cheney admitting a mistake in supporting Saddam… You can google for the following speech or interview yourself; I needn’t do your work for you… but yes, in an interview a year or two ago, Cheney said in effect that the 1991 decision to leave Saddam in power (when Cheney was Secdef, a major Bush 41 Administration player who supported that decision at the time) was a very regrettable mistake indeed, and he’s grateful to have had a chance to be part of the solution (in 2003).
I know how tough it must be for you to wrap your mind around the concept of someone making a mistake, and later seeing what a mistake it was and CHANGING THEIR TUNE appropriately, or on a principled basis. When left-liberal politicians change their tune, which is often, it is almost always unprincipled – e.g., Clinton or Kerry – so of course you would expect that politicians must always be inappropriate / unprincipled.
P.S. So, flip-flopping is not changing one’s mind per se, or admitting mistakes per se. Flip-flopping is changing one’s mind because of a distinct lack of fortitude or principles, which describes Clinton & Kerry.
I know that’s an abstract principle right there, and you will have to think about it awhile to get it.
One might seriously also wonder, whether other leaders of other countries, who might have otherwise become friends of the Bushies, might not do that for fear that they might be deposed.
Actually, the biggest proof of the fallacy of that statement happens to be Qaddafi.
The US made it clear that he had two options — ditch his weapons and play nice, or keep his weapons and be driven out of power. He chose the wisest option by far, and is being rewarded by the redevelopment of diplomatic, economic, and commercial ties. Same with Saudi Arabia, same with Pakistan.
But when it comes to brutal fools like Saddam and Noriega, they chose unwisely, and paid the price for it.
If people want to play nice, they are rewarded. If they don’t, they are punished.
The term you’re reaching for is Pointless Liberal Factoids (TM, Ann Coulter).
hey raj, address my point. Would you, do you think America should choose the lesser of two evils when trying to advance our interests?
Partner w the Soviets against the Nazis/ the Iraqis against the Iranians/
partner with the Chinese against the N Koreans. In real life, adults have to descriminate. Leaders have to lead. Choices have to be made.
Just trying to be helpful here, but you’re talking to a moonbat. There are, therefore, two conceptual problems with what you said — in the sense that moonbats cannot grasp either.
Real life (or any variant of reality) and adults.
You know the adage about not trying to teach a pig to sing, right?
Raj is too busy trying to find statistical proof for his statements that the number of discharges did NOT decline in the decade before Clinton’s DADT.
You see, Raj says that Dale Carpenter, an established law professor with a real identity, is lying when Carpenter points that out.
#35 Gene in Pennsylvania — May 25, 2006 @ 8:55 pm – May 25, 2006
hey raj, address my point.
And, just what was your point?
In your comment that I responded to you, as I quoted, you contended that conservatives in the US supported and encouraged the Soviets against the Nazis. That is demonstrably incorrect, as I pointed out. Conservatives in the US fought FDR’s attempts to help the Soviets (and the British, for that matter) tooth & nail. Mr Conservative Senator Robert Taft was one of FDR’s principal opponents. American Firsters.
So, just what was your point?
#33 North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 1:35 pm – May 25, 2006
Actually, the biggest proof of the fallacy of that statement happens to be Qaddafi.
This is a joke, right? Qaddafi (to use your spelling–there are others) is currently nothing more than a figurehead in Libya. The torch in Libya, so to speak, has passed to a new generation, that is far less interested in Qaddafi’s “revolution.” It is that generation that is running the country, and it is that generation that agreed to give up its purported (but probably non-existant) nuclear program. Libya’s new generation figured that they could do better economically by cooperating with the Europeans (not the Americans) than by not. You really should learn to read the foreign language press.
But when it comes to brutal fools like Saddam and Noriega, they chose unwisely, and paid the price for it.
In a way, that might be correct, but not in the way that you probably intend. Saddam and Noriega were useful fools for the US, and paid the price for cooperating with the US. The only interest that the US had in the Iran/Iraq war was to try to get back at Iran for the US embassy hostage taking. Otherwise, what other interest would the US have in the winner of Saddam’s Krieg gegen den Iranern?
#37 North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 5:47 pm – May 26, 2006
Raj is too busy trying to find statistical proof for his statements that the number of discharges did NOT decline in the decade before Clinton’s DADT.
Oh, no, you fail to understand. No surprise. (You also apparently fail to recall that I am commenting from Germany, which is 6 hours ahead of EDT. Also, I rarely comment after noon local time.) I do not doubt that Carpenter is correct in the data points that he cited. What you fail to understand, and completely ignore, is that Carpenter’s data points are not only incomplete (year-by-year, please), but they are also completely deceptive–they ignore intervening cirumstances, such as Gulf War I. If and when you are able to provide such statistics, I might sit up and pay attention. Otherwise, no. Carpenter is a useful fool for the Republikaner.
And the fact that Carpenter might be a law professor isn’t particularly interesting. Giving homage to someone for being a law professor is about as dumb as giving someone homage for being a professor in political science, sociology, economics or business.
Regarding the post, I’ve long been amused at the right-wing blogosphere’s genuflection before an otherwise obscure law professor from Tennessee. I’m referring to Glenn “heh-heh-heh” Reynolds, of course.
I’ve often wondered whether he uses his blog to advertise his extra-curricular legal services.
Poor Raj, caught in your lies again.
We won’t even deal with your inane statement that Qaddafi doesn’t control Libya, because it would be lending credence to stupidity of epic proportions which it doesn’t deserve.
When I cornered you about your saying that Dale Carpenter was a liar, you tried babbling this:
I do not doubt that Carpenter is correct in the data points that he cited. What you fail to understand, and completely ignore, is that Carpenter’s data points are not only incomplete (year-by-year, please), but they are also completely deceptive–they ignore intervening cirumstances, such as Gulf War I.
WRONG.
The result is the most easily quantifiable harm done to actual gay people during the Clinton years. According to figures from the Defense Department, discharges for homosexuality declined every year between the first full year of the Reagan administration (1982) and the first full year of the Clinton administration (1994), for a net decline during the period of more than 70 percent.
Of course, you claimed the “every year” statement, which you now admit to be true, was a lie — and you insist that the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 was the cause of the decline in discharges for eight years prior.
In short, you called Dale Carpenter a liar — and got caught.
And as for your parting shot at Glenn Reynolds, one must laugh, considering the fact that you demand obesiance and acceptance of your lies because YOU “taught in law school”. Glenn Reynolds is a public figure, whose writings and actions can be reviewed. You make grandiose claims, yet skulk and hide, afraid to even reveal an email address.
Probably because, were you to tell us who you are, Reynolds, Carpenter, and Volokh would have vastly different estimations of your capabilities.
Man raj, can’t you tell when your head has been bloodied and bashed and there is blood leaking out of your ears?
16: yes, now they Iraqis have to worry about american troops involved in killing innocent Iraqi civilians and then having the US military try to cover it up…but then again, that’s just “collateral damage”, isn’t it?
23: They only got rid of Saddam after he ceased being of use to us in getting back at Iran. Reagan, Rumsfeld, et al knew he was a murdering dictator when they assisted in arming him, but they could have cared less as long as the selfish interests of the US were served. They only went after him when he went after a country that supplied oil to the west. When governments (no matter liberal or conservative run) learn that doing business with a leader in a military uniform is a bad idea? I think having political leaders who are in bed with the oil industry seems a bad thing for America as well: People like the Bush family could give a shit about the American people – they’re more interested in crafting policies that only serve to make them and their friends richer at the expense of American freedom and lives.
When governments (no matter liberal or conservative run) learn that doing business with a leader in a military uniform is a bad idea?
Why, Kevin?
If they quit working with them, this is what you claim happens:
16: yes, now they Iraqis have to worry about american troops involved in killing innocent Iraqi civilians and then having the US military try to cover it up…but then again, that’s just “collateral damage”, isn’t it?
In short, you’re saying that doing something to remove the dictator is worse and results in more damage.
Back up your statements. If keeping Saddam in power was the worst thing the US could do, why did you so vehemently oppose removing him — and support keeping him?
#40 North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2006 @ 3:37 pm – May 27, 2006
In short, you called Dale Carpenter a liar…
I’m sure that Carpenter–as presumably a lawyer, and, hence, an Officer of the Court–would never ever lie. Lawyers never do, do they?
Regardless, Carpenter is an advocate for the Republican party –“What Is A Gay Republican To Do?” why, vote Republican, of course! So, as far as I’m concerned, his analysis of the statistics–or, more specifically, the import that he would like you to glean from the statistics that he has bothered quoting–is highly dubious. If he were actually to give us the year-by-year statistics, and the year-by-year background information such as the perceived threat that might induce the military to ignore the homos, I might sit up and pay attention. It’s doubtful that Carpenter would be willing or able to perform such analyses–it might require him to perform what mathematicians refer to as “regression analyses.”
In other words, it would be nice if Carpenter would prove what he intends that he would like you to believe. He won’t, of course.
Probably because, were you to tell us who you are, Reynolds, Carpenter, and Volokh would have vastly different estimations of your capabilities.
Yawn, the webmaster here can tell you who I am, if you are really interested in knowing.
Regarding Volokh, I had a little email correspondence with him a few years ago. He had quoted a statistic regarding the % of gay and lesbian people in the population, that he had gleaned from an early 1990s (maybe 1994) study conducted by the University of Chicago’s NORC (I believe that stands for National Opinion Research Center) of the number of gays and lesbians in the population. I commented in email to Volokh (this was before he allowed for comments) on the obvious limitations on the survey, and he agreed. Yet, several days later, he again cited the statistics from the survey, without any indication of the survey’s limitations. Was his later citation of the statistic, that he had acknowledged to be of doubtful veracity, a lie? I’ll leave it to you, but as far as I’m concerned it was.
I go to Volokh when I’ve heard word of an interesting US court decision, in the expectation that he might have a link to the opinions in the case. Otherwise, I pretty much keep away. Volokh’s blog is something of a mess, given the fact that there are too many personalities there with too many personal axes to grind.
#41 Gene in Pennsylvania — May 27, 2006 @ 10:37 pm – May 27, 2006
No.
#42 Kevin — May 28, 2006 @ 9:42 pm – May 28, 2006
They only got rid of Saddam after he ceased being of use to us in getting back at Iran. Reagan, Rumsfeld, et al knew he was a murdering dictator when they assisted in arming him, but they could have cared less as long as the selfish interests of the US were served.
To be fair, Saddam didn’t help himself any by invading Kuwait, but it is the case that the primary reason that Bush I got involved in the Kuwait thing was because Maggie Thatcher (remember her?) persuaded him to do so.
Two points.
Point one, Maggie Thatcher’s interest in the Kuwait thing was primarily due to the fact that Kuwait, Inc. (the company–uh, dynasty–that controlled Kuwait) was headquartered in, of all places, London. And, if Kuwait, Inc. had lost its foothold in Kuwait, there would be no Kuwait, Inc. And Maggie Thatcher largely induced Bush I to go to war against Iraq to preserve Kuwait, Inc.
Otherwise stated, Gulf War I was a business deal among the Bushies, the Thatcherites and Kuwait, Inc.
Point two, yes, you’re exactly right that Saddam was a murdering dictator, but, prior to 1990, he was our murdering dictator, so we didn’t care. Do a bit of a search. Do you recall the screams from the right-wingnuts and the Bushies that Saddam gassed his own people? Well, yes, that was true. He gassed Kurds (in the north of Iraq) in 1988 during the Iran/Iraq war, using gas that the US had given him the means to produce. He did it to try to put down an uprising among the Kurds, who were supporting Iran during the war. What the right-wingnuts fail to tell you is that, after the gassing became known, the administration of St. Ronald, he of Reagan, had initially tried to blame the gassing on the Iranians, America’s enemy, instead of the Iraqis, America’s purported ally in the war. It was only after St. Ronald’s administration was embarrassed into having to tell the truth–that their ally Saddam had done the gassing–that the truth came out.